A Review of Instruments Used Presented by - … · about the child’s performance in that ......

Children’s Assessments (PPA Presentation)

A Review of Instruments Used

In the Assessment of Children

Presented by:

Robert A. Reed, Psy.D.

Department of Psychology & Counseling

Carlow University

and

Diane Snyder, Psy.D.

Post-Doc, Carnegie Mellon University

Counseling Center

Pennsylvania Psychological Convention

June 18, 2014


Developmental Assessments

Purposes of Developmental Assessment & Screening

to identify infants who may be at risk for developmental delay,

to diagnose the presence and extent of developmental problems,

to identify an infant’s specific abilities and skills, and

to determine appropriate intervention strategies. (Wyly, 1997)

as evaluation of intervention strategies

prediction of future competencies

assessment of skills that are fundamental for success in a classroom environment (McCormick, 2008)

Infants and Toddlers

occurs routinely in medical care settings

infant-toddler care/education/intervention programs

rely on brief screening instruments

more complete assessments of children who do not seem to be developing at the usual pace

General types of infant and toddler developmental assessments

questionnaires for the primary caregiver about the child’s activities, either soliciting the achievement of

specific developmental milestones or eliciting more general assessments of child development

observations of child activities on a limited number of items (Glascoe, 2003)

any child found to have developmental difficulties requires access to a more refined assessment with a

professionally administered developmental tool

Domains of Development

General Cognitive skills

Language

Motor

Socioemotional development

Functional abilities appropriate to the age of the child

Cognitive Screening Tools

Caregiver Report Observation Mixed

Ages and Stages Developmental Indicators for

Assessment of Learning-Revised

Battelle Developmental

Inventory Screening Test

Infant Development

Inventory

Slosson Intelligence Test Developmental Profile-II

NCHS/NLSY Questionnaire Lexington Developmental Scales Preschool Screening System

Parents’ Evaluation of

Developmental Status

Bayley Infant

Neurodevelopmental Screener

(BINS)

Denver Developmental

Screening Test II


Cognitive Diagnostic Tools

Bayley Scales of Infant Development, Third ed.

McCarthy Scales of Children’s Ability

Mullen Scales of Early Learning

Language Screening Tools

Caregiver Reports Observation

The Quick Test Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test

Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales

(Coplan, 1993)

Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test

Early Language Milestone Scale (Wetherby and

Prizant, 2002)

Language Diagnostic Tools


Receptive Expressive Emergent

Language Scale (REEL)

Reynell Developmental

Language Scales

Sequenced Inventory of

Communication

Development

MacArthur-Bates Communicative

Development Inventories

Preschool Language Scale

Test of Early Language

Development

Motor Development

Screening

Early Motor Pattern Profile (EMPP) (Morgan and Aldag, 1996)

Motor Quotient (Capute and Shapiro, 1985)

Diagnostic

Bayley Scales of Infant Development, Third ed.

Movement Assessment of Infants (Chandler, Andrews, and Swanson, 1980)

Peabody Developmental Motor Scales (Folio and Fewell, 1983)

Alberta Infant Motor Scale (Piper and Darrah, 1994)


Social-Emotional Development


Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory Bayley Scales of Infant

Development, Third ed

Vineland Social-Emotional

Maturity Scale

Infant-Toddler Social Emotional

Assessment, ITSEA

Achenbach System of Empirically

Based Assessment

Devereux Early Childhood

Assessment

Domain: Function/Activities of Daily Living

Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale-II

Specific Developmental Disabilities

Modified Checklist of Autism in Toddlers (Dumont-Mathieu and Fine, 2005)

Checklist for Autism in Toddlers (CHAT) (Baird et al., 2000)

Pervasive Developmental Disorders Screening Test-II (PDDST-II) (Siegel, 2004)

Screening Tool for Autism in Two-Year-Olds (STAT) (Stone, Coonrod, and Ousley, 2000)

Social Communication Questionnaire (SCQ) (Rutter, Bailey, and Lord, 2003)

Bayley Scales of Infant Development- Third Edition

Purpose: Assess developmental functioning of infants and young children

Population: children ages 1 – 42 months

Administration Time: 30-60 minutes

Publisher: The Psychological Corporation

Cost: $1299 per complete kit

Scoring: hand or computer scoring available

Bayley-III

Originally published in 1969; latest version 2006

Assesses development across all 5 domains

Socio-Emotional (Greenspan) and Adaptive domains are new additions

To be used to identify children with developmental delays and provide data for treatment planning

Bayley-III Psychometrics

provides norms at 10 day intervals of infants between 16 days and 5 months 15 days to allow for more precise

measurement

Psychometric properties exceed those recommended by American Educational Research Association,

American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement

Standardization included national sample of 1700 children between ages 16 days and 43 months and 15 days


Stratified sampling for parent education, race/ethnicity, and geographic region

Equal boys and girls for each age group

Bayley Infant Neurodevelopmental Screener (BINS)

Purpose: To identify infants who are developmentally delayed or have neurological impairments

Population: ages 3 -24 months

Administration: About 10 minutes

Publisher: The Psychological Corporation


Utilizes a subset of the items from the Bayley Scales of Infant Development – Second Edition

Screening tool; Inadequate as diagnostic tool

Assesses 4 conceptual areas:

o Basic Neurological Functions/Intactness

o Receptive Functions

o Expressive Functions

o Cognitive Processes

BINS Psychometrics

Normative Sample: 600 nonclinical cases stratifies according to ages, sex, race/ethnicity, geographic region,

and parent education level

Validity: Convergent validity with the BSID-II and the Battelle showed a trend to over identify infants when

the highest cutoff score was used.

Battelle Developmental Inventory, 2nd Edition

Purpose: Screening, diagnosis, and evaluation of development

Population: birth to 7 years, 11 months

Administration: 60-90 minutes

Publisher: Riverside Publishing

Cost: $1232 for complete kit with manipulatives

Scoring: hand and computer scoring available

Personal-Social, Adaptive, Motor, Communication, and Cognitive ability

100 item screening is a subset of total assessment

Screens and evaluates early childhood developmental milestones providing a strong assessment-intervention

link; Coordinates well with early childhood curricula

BDI–2 Psychometrics

Normative Sample: 2500 children in 30 states; stratified according to age, sex, race/ethnicity, geographic

region, and SES

Validity/Reliability: Test-Retest reliability .93 for 2 year olds .94 for 4 year olds; Convergent validity with

BSID-II, the Vineland, the WPPSI-III range from .60-.75

Mullen Scales of Early Learning

Purpose: A comprehensive measure of cognitive functioning for infants and preschool children

Population: birth to 68 months


Publisher: American Guidance Services


Cost: $849.65/per complete kit


Identifies a child's strengths and weaknesses

Assesses early intellectual development and readiness for school

Provides a foundation for successful interventions

Mullen Psychometrics

Normative Sample: 71 clinicians over 8 years; 1849 children between ages of 2 days and 69 months; 51%

male, 49 % female; Stratified according to race/ethnicity, SES geographic region, and community size

Validity/Reliability: Concurrent validity with Bayley .70. Test-Retest reliability measure for 2 age groups.

For younger group .82-.96, for older .71-.79

Vineland Social-Emotional Early Childhood Scales

Purpose: To assess the social and emotional functioning of young children

Population: birth to age 5 years, 11 months

Administration Time: 15-25 minutes

Publisher: American Guidance Service



Subset from the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale

Screening and identification of developmental delays but must be combined with other assessment for

diagnostic purposes (Mullen)

3 scales: Relationships, Play and Leisure, Coping Skills

Validity/Reliability data derived from Vineland ABS

Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition

Purpose: Designed as an adaptive behavior assessment system that measures self-sufficiency across the

life-span.

Population: Birth to age 90-11


Publisher: Pearson

Cost: $420.65 for complete starter kit

Scoring: hand and computer scoring available

Vineland II

Parent/Caregiver rating form, teacher rating form, and semi-structured interview

Assesses 4 domains of functioning: Communication, Daily Living Skills, Socialization, Motor Skills

Updated version improved diagnostic clarity to reflect the trend of the greater cultural expectations for

adaptive behavior in individuals with developmental disabilities associated with placement in least restrictive

living environments

Vineland II - Psychometrics

Normative Sample: National sample of 3695 stratified according to race/ethnicity, geographical region, sex,

and mother’s education level

Validity/Reliability: Internal consistency reliabilities .80 for the three primary domains; The Vineland-II

domain scores tended to show moderately strong convergent correlations with comparable scales from the

Adaptive Behavior Assessment System, Second Edition, with correlations averaging around .70 for similar


scales. With regard to discriminant validity, Vineland-II domain scores tended to correlate at rather low levels

with intelligence test scores from the Wechsler tests, correlations generally falling in the range from .10 to .35

The Difficulty of Assessing Young Children

Undifferentiated nature of their capabilities, Infants being less differentiated than older children

Sustaining attention

There is no practical or reliable measure of any specific domain in early infancy that gives a precise prediction

about the child’s performance in that domain several years later (National Research Council and Institute of

Medicine, 2000).

Intelligence

History of IQ

Stanford Binet (1905)

Alpha-verbal & Beta-nonverbal (WW I)

FSIQ, VIQ, PIQ: Wechsler-Bellevue (1939)

Subtest improvements

Dealing with bias

CHC Model (Cattell-Horn Carroll)

Spearman (1904) g + specific factors

Thurstone (1938) primary mental abilities

– 7-9 PMAs, independent of g

Cattell-Horn: Gc and Gf

Carroll (1993) (CHC) three-stratum model

– g = general measure of ability

– 10 = broad measures of ability

– 70 = narrow measures of ability

Broad measures of ability (Flanagan, Ortiz & Alfonso, 2007)

Crystallized Intelligence (Gc): breadth and depth of a person's acquired knowledge, ability to communicate

one's knowledge, ability to reason using previously learned experiences.

Fluid Intelligence (Gf): broad ability to reason, form concepts, and solve problems using unfamiliar

information or novel procedures.

Quantitative Reasoning (Gq): ability to comprehend quantitative concepts and relationships and manipulate

numerical symbols.

Reading & Writing Ability (Grw): basic reading and writing skills.

Short-Term Memory (Gsm): ability to apprehend and hold information in immediate awareness and use it

within a few seconds.

Long-Term Storage and Retrieval (Glr): ability to store information and fluently retrieve it later in the process

of thinking.

Visual Processing (Gv): ability to perceive, analyze, synthesize, and think with visual patterns, including the

ability to store and recall visual representations.

Auditory Processing (Ga): ability to analyze, synthesize, and discriminate auditory stimuli, including the ability

to process and discriminate speech sounds that may be presented under distorted conditions.


Processing Speed (Gs): ability to perform automatic cognitive tasks, when measured under pressure to

maintain focused attention.

Decision/Reaction Time/Speed (Gt): the immediacy with which an individual can react to stimuli or a task

(typically measured in seconds or fractions of seconds; not to be confused with Gs, which typically is measured

in intervals of 2-3 minutes).

Current Issues: Verbal vs Nonverbal Intelligence

Verbal and nonverbal measures are a “practical” method for assessing IQ based on alpha & beta tests

– Tests have been “used to define the theory of intelligence that the test is intended to measure”

(Naglieri, 2008, p. 68).

Verbal tasks

– Correlate with achievement testing

– Concern about overlap

BUT Rindermann (2007) argues that the overlap between verbal IQ and achievement is a function of one

common latent ability and has some research to support this argument.

Nonverbal tasks

– Are culturally more fair (Naglieri, 2008)

– Do not share overlap with achievement tests

– So, the variance they capture may be more unique to the person’s intellectual abilities

If so, then the nonverbal tests may be a better measure of cognitive abilities

Many tests are trying to include the Verbal and Nonverbal while also trying to adhere to CHC model

Wechsler Intelligence Tests

The Wechsler Intelligence Scales are some of the most well-known measures of cognitive abilities. Several of the

subtests are similar to the Army Beta test (Picture Completion, Coding and Block Design). Early versions of the

Information, Arithmetic and Digit Span subtests were found on the Army Alpha test.

The current tests include:

Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence, 4th Edition (WPPSI-IV) – ages 2.6 to 7.7)

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, 4th Edition (WISC-IV) – ages 6 to 16

Wechsler Adult Intelligence Test, 4th Edition (WAIS-IV) – ages 16 to 90:11

WPPSI-IV

Author: David Wechsler

Published by: Pearson (PsychCorp)

Copyright: 2012

Cost: $1,145.00 (in box)

Content Evaluation (Wechsler, 2012)

Scale has been divided into two age bands, 2:6-3:11 years and 4:0-7:7 years

The WPPSI-IV has expanded to include additional subtests and index scores. Pearson reports that the testing time

has been maintained or reduced while increasing construct coverage. The age range has been extended to 7 years

7 months. The test was normed and standardized on 1,700 children stratified for US census. Pearson reports

comparable or improved psychometrics compared to the WPPSI-III.

Primary Index Scales for Children ages 2.6 to 3.11:

o Verbal Comprehension Index uses two subtests: Receptive Vocabulary and Information

o Visual Spatial Index uses two subtests: Block Design and Object Assembly


o Working Memory Index uses two subtests: Picture Memory and Zoo Locations

o FSIQ is derived from the five subtests (all subtests listed above except Zoo Locations)

Ancillary Index Scales for Children ages 2.6 to 3.11:

o Vocabulary Acquisition uses two subtests: Receptive Vocabulary and Picture Naming

o Nonverbal uses four subtests: Block Design, Object Assembly, Picture Memory and Zoo Locations

o General Ability uses four subtests: Receptive Vocabulary, Information, Block Design and Object

Assembly

Primary Index Scales for Children ages 4.0 to 7.7:

o Verbal Comprehension uses two subtests: Information and Similarities (other subtests are available)

o Visual Spatial uses one subtest: Block Design and Object Assembly is available

o Fluid Reasoning contains two tests: Matrix Reasoning and Picture Concepts

o Working Memory includes two subtests: Picture Memory and Zoo Locations

o Processing Speed uses two subtests: Bug Search and Cancellation

o FSIQ is derived from six subtests: Information, Similarities, Block Design, Matrix Reasoning, Picture

Memory and Bug Search

Ancillary Index Scales for Children ages 4.0 to 7.7:

o Vocabulary Acquisition uses Receptive Vocabulary and Picture Naming

o Nonverbal uses Block Design, Matrix Reasoning, Picture Concepts, Picture Memory and Bug Search

o General Ability uses Information, Similarities, Block Design and Matrix Reasoning

o Cognitive Proficiency uses Picture Memory, Zoo Locations, Bug Search and Cancellation

WISC-IV


Published by: Pearson

Copyright: 2003

Cost: $1,069.00 (in box)


The WISC-IV preserves much if its earlier design, but “tilts” its design to reflect the CHC Model:

FSIQ or General Intelligence

Broad abilities includes four Index Scores derived from 10 narrow measures of ability

Verbal Comprehension – Measures crystalized intelligence (3 subtests: Similarities, Vocabulary &

Comprehension)

Perceptual Reasoning – Measures fluid reasoning (3 subtests: Block Design, Picture Concepts & Matrix

Reasoning)

Working Memory – Measures working memory (2 subtests: Digit Span & Letter-Number Sequencing)

Processing Speed – Measures speed of processing (2 subtests: Coding & Symbol Search)

WISC-V Coming Late fall, 2014



Copyright: 2014

Cost: $1,031.00 (in box)


The WISC-V continues to “tilt” its design to reflect the CHC Model:



Broad abilities now include five Index Scores

Verbal Comprehension – Similarities, Vocabulary, Information & Comprehension

Visual Spatial – Block Design and Visual Puzzles

Fluid Reasoning – Matrix Reasoning, Figure Weights, Picture Concepts & Arithmetic

Working Memory – Digit Span, Picture Span & Letter-Number Sequencing)

Processing Speed – Coding, Symbol Search & Cancellation

WAIS-IV



Copyright: 2008

Cost: $1,145.00 (in box)


The WAIS-IV preserves much if its earlier design, but has started to “tilt” its design to reflect the CHC Model:


Broad abilities includes four Index Scores derived from 10 narrow measures of ability

Verbal Comprehension – Measures crystalized intelligence (3 subtests: Similarities, Vocabulary & Information)

Perceptual Reasoning – Measures fluid reasoning (3 subtests: Block Design, Matrix Reasoning & Visual Puzzles)

Working Memory – Measures working memory (2 subtests: Digit Span & Arithmetic)

Processing Speed – Measures speed of processing (2 subtests: Coding & Symbol Search)

Reliability

The Wechsler scales have outstanding reliabilities (Kaufman & Lichtenberger, 1999; Sattler & Saklofske, 2001).

Overall internal consistency for the normative sample was in the .90s for IQ and Index scores except for the PSI (PSI

.87-.89). At the subtest level reliability is at .80s and .90s. Test retest stability ranges from .86 to .95 for IQ and

Index scores. And .70s to .90s for subtests. Interscorer agreement is in the .90 for all subtests (Wechsler, 2002).

Validity

The test manuals provide evidence of construct validity and the current structure of the WISC-IV and WAIS-IV have

been getting closer to the CHC model with its four Index scores. Independent researchers have replicated the

four-factor structure of the WISC and WAIS (Georgas, Van de Vijver, Weiss and Sakofske, 2002). Content validity

evidence is abundant with the Wechsler tests correlating well with other well-known tests such as the DAS .84-.91

(Elliott, 1990 and Wechsler, 2002), and the SB5 .80-.91 (Roid, 2003). Correlations between the Wechsler tests and

achievement tests have yielded predictive validity estimates from .65 to .75 (Wechsler, 2002, 2003).

Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, 5th

Edition

Author: Gale Roid

Published by Riverside Publishing

Copyright date: 2003

Cost: $1,087.00

The SB5 is an individually administered assessment of intelligence and cognitive abilities suitable for examinees

aged two years through 85+ years. The SB5 yields a Full Scale IQ, Nonverbal IQ, Verbal IQ and an Abbreviated

Battery IQ. Five index scores are reported. All IQ and Index scores have a mean of 100 with a standard deviation of

15. Subtest scores have a mean of 10 and a standard deviation of 3, providing an opportunity for comparing profile

scores across other common IQ tests (Roid, 2003a).


There is an additional early childhood version of the test for ages 2-7 years suitable for those working with

preschool assessment.

Content Evaluation

The SB5 is the first test to measure five cognitive factors in both nonverbal an verbal domains and is designed to

measure several of the cognitive factors identified by the CHC theory (fluid reasoning, crystallized general

knowledge, quantitative reasoning, visual-spatial ability and working memory. The CHC theory contends that

intelligence is a multifaceted array of cognitive abilities with a general (g) measure composed of several

dimensions (i.e., including the factors listed above) (Roid, 2003b).

General or Full Scale IQ (derived from 10 subtests that measure narrow abilities)

Broad abilities/Factors Nonverbal Verbal

Fluid Reasoning Object Series/Matrices Verbal Absurdities/Verbal Analogies

Knowledge Picture Absurdities Vocabulary

Quantitative Quantitative Reasoning Quantitative Reasoning

Visual-Spatial Form Patterns Position and Direction

Working Memory Block Span (tapping) Memory for Sentences/Last Word

SB5 Testing Sequence

• Administer Nonverbal Fluid Reasoning routing test.

• Administer Verbal Knowledge (vocabulary) routing test.

• Enter appropriate level for Nonverbal testlets

– 6 nonverbal levels

– Administer all testlets for appropriate level (ordered by level of difficulty), then proceed to next level

and administer all testlets, etc. until ceiling is reached for each factor.

• Enter appropriate verbal level testlets

– 5 verbal levels – complete all testlets for appropriate level and then proceed to next level –

administer all testlets, etc until ceiling is reached for each factor.

Technical Evaluation

The SB5 was standardized on a nationally representative sample of 4,800 subjects ranging in age from 2.0 years to

85+ years (oldest subject was 96). Demographics of the normative sample was matched with the 2000 census for

gender, ethnicity, geographic region and parental education (Roid, 2003b).

Reliability

Internal consistency averages .84-.89 across the 10 subtests. Split half coefficients for the FSIQ=.98, NVIQ=.95 and

VIQ=.96. Abbreviated IQ=.91. Factor Index scores rnage from .90 to .92. Nonverbal subtests range from .85 to .88

and Verbal subtests range from .84 to .89 (Roid, 2003b). Test re-test reliability measures (i.e., 5-8 days) are

reported for various ages and vary from .84 to .95 (Roid, 2003b). The practice effect in the test re-test procedure

(5-8 days) showed an IQ difference of 2-5 points and that author argues that this lower practice effect might

indicate that retesting can be done earlier than in other tests (author suggests retesting possible after 6 months

rather than the traditional one-year delay) (Roid and Tippin, 2009).

Validity

Several studies providing content-, criterion-, construct-, and consequence-related validity are included in the

technical manual (Roid, 2003b). Using confirmatory factor analysis, the five-factor model showed a strong and


favorable fit (.89 to .93). Confirmatory analyses using the full-length subtests from the SB5 and the WJ III showed a

strong fit with the five-factor model aligning across the SB5 and the WJ III (Mather & Woodcock, 2001).

Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, 2nd

Edition

Authors: Alan Kaufman and Nadeen Kaufman

Published by: Pearson (originally published by AGS)

Copyright: 2004

Cost: $925.00

The KABC-II is defined as an individually administered and culturally fair test for children (minimizes verbal

instructions and responses). The test employs a dual-theoretical model using both the Luria neuropsychological

model and the Cattell/Horn/Carroll (CHC)model. It is normed for children ages 3-18.

Content Evaluation (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004a)

The KABC-II uses a five factor design including the following factors and subtests:

Simultaneous/Gv (visual-spatial abilities)

Triangles - assemble several foam triangles to match a picture

Face Recognition - looks at photographs and select the correct face/faces shown in a difference pose from a

selection

Pattern Reasoning (ages 5 and 6) -

Block Counting - count the number of blocks in a picture of a stack of blocks

Story Completion (ages 5 and 6)

Conceptual Thinking – select a picture from a set of 4 or 5 that does not belong with the set

Rover - move a toy dog to a bone on a grid that contains several obstacles

Gestalt Closure - fill in gaps in a partially completed inkblot drawing and describe the object/action

Sequential/ Gsm (short-term memory)

Word Order - child touches a series of silhouettes of objects in the same order they were read by evaluator

Number Recall – child recalls numbers in same order that they were read by evaluator

Hand Movements - copy a series of taps the examiner makes on the table with hand

Planning/Gf (fluid reasoning)

Pattern Reasoning (ages 7–18) - child selects the missing stimulus within a pattern

Story Completion (ages 7–18) – child selects pictures to fill in a story line

Learning/Glr (long-term storage and retrieval)

Atlantis - child then has points to correct picture when nonsense name is read

Atlantis Delayed - repeat the Atlantis subtest 15-25 minutes later to assess delayed recall

Rebus - child is taught word or concept associated with a rebus (drawing) - child reads aloud phrases

composed of these rebuses

Rebus Delayed – child repeats Rebus subtest 15-25 minutes later to demonstrate recall

Knowledge/Gc (crystalized intelligence - included in the CHC model only)

Riddles – evaluator reads characteristics of verbal concept, the child points to it or names it

Expressive Vocabulary – child names objects

Verbal Knowledge – child selects picture that corresponds to a vocabulary word

KABC-II provides two general intelligence composite scores (M=100, SD=15): Mental Processing Index (MPI; Luria’s

model) and Fluid-Crystalized Index (FCI; CHC model). The Luria model takes 25-60 minutes to administer while the

CHC model takes 30-75 minutes to administer. A separate nonverbal index is also available.


Technical Evaluation

The KABC-II was standardized on a sample of 3,025 children chosen to match the 2001 U.S. Census for age, gender,

geographical region, ethnicity and parent education. There are 18 age groups.

Reliability

Average internal consistency for the MPI and FCI ranges from .95 to .97. Average test retest for the MPI and FCI

ranges from .86 to .94 (correlations improve with age) groups (Lichtenberger, Sotelo-Dynega & Kaufman, 2009).

Validity

Construct validity is supported by factor-analysis studies available in the KABC-II Manual. Confirmatory factor

analysis reports high loadings on the intended scale and on the general factor. KABC-II is also supported by

correlations with the WISC-IV, WPPSI-III, KAIT, and WJ-III (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004).

One of the MMY reviewers was critical that while the KABC-II claims to reflect the Luria model of processing, it

does not live up to its claims (see MMY for details).

Cognitive Assessment System-2nd Edition (CAS2)

Authors Naglieri and Das

Published by: Riverside

Copyright: 2012

Cost: $875.00 (without case)

Time to test: 40-60 minutes (shorter or standard formats)

The CAS is described as a multi-dimensional measure of ability based on a cognitive and neuropsychological

processing theory called Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, and Successive (PASS) (Naglieri & Conway, 2009). The

Riverside website states that the CAS is processing measure of ability that is fair to minority children, effective for

differential diagnosis and related to intervention. It is designed for children ages 5 – 18.

Content Evaluation (Naglieri & Das, 1997)

The CAS is based on the PASS theory that emphasizes basic psychological processes. Naglieri and Conway (2009)

stress that PASS processes are the “building blocks of ability conceptualized within a cognitive processing

framework, p 27.” PASS is defined as:

Planning: a mental activity that provides cognitive control, intentionality, organization, self-regulation and use of

processes, knowledge, and skills. Naglieri and Conway (2009)note that the construct of Planning is tested through

novel problem-solving where there is no previously acquired strategy. It is similar to the concept of executive

functioning. Planning contains three subtests:

Planned Number Matching: from row of numbers, identify two that are the same

Planned Codes: similar to other coding tests (e.g., A=XO; B=XX; etc.). Child writes in correct code

Planned Connections: connect numbers and letters in sequences that appear in a quasi-random order

Attention is described as a mental function that provides focused, selective cognitive activity over time that is

resistant to distraction. Attention is measured using three subtests that include the following:

Expressive Attention: Similar to Stroop Test where child reads color words printed in black in random

order. Then child names colors of a series of rectangles printed in the same colors as named on previous


page. Then child is presented with color words printed in different ink colors that the colors the words

name. Child says the color the word is printed in and not the name of the color.

Number Detection: child finds the target stimulus (e.g., the numbers 1, 2, and 3 printed in an open font)

located within many distractors, such as the same numbers printed in a different font.

Receptive Attention: Targets are letters that are physically the same (e.g., L L but not L l). Then targets are

letters that have same name but are not physically the same (e.g., L l but not P l).

Simultaneous Processing is a mental activity where the child integrates stimuli into inter-related groups or a

whole. Simultaneous Processing Subtests include:

Matrices: traditional matrix test

Verbal Spatial Relations: measures comprehension of logical and grammatical descriptions of spatial

relationships. Child selects one of six drawings that best answers a question. Typical item might include:

“which picture shows a diamond below a circle?”

Figure Memory: child is presented with a two-or three-dimensional geometric figure for 5 seconds. The

child is then asked to identify this figure within a larger complex geometric pattern that contains the

previous figure.

Successive Processing is described as a mental activity where a child processes stimuli in a specific serial order to

form a chain-like progression. Successive Processing Subtests include:

Word Series: child is read a series of words and then asked to repeat them in order

Sentence Repetition: Twenty sentences are read to the child. The child is asked to repeat each sentence

exactly as presented. Naglieri and Conway (2009) note that the sentences are composed of color words,

such as “The blue yellows the green” in order to reduce semantic meaning from the sentences.

Sentence Questions: Similar sentences are used as in Sentence Repetition but after each sentence is read,

the child is asked a question about it. For example, the examiner reads, “The blue yellows the green,” and

then asks the child, “Who yellows the green?”

Visual Digit Span

The CAS2 Full Scale score and each of the four PASS domains yields a standard score (M=100, SD=15). CAS2

subtests are reported as scaled scores (e.g., M=10, SD=3). Many of the PASS subtests are based on work completed

by Luria. Note how many of the tests avoid tasks associated with crystalized intelligence.

The CA2S includes the standard 12 subtest battery that can be administered in about 60 minutes. A shorter battery

containing 8 subtests (two from each domain) takes about 40 minutes. The CAS was standardized on a sample of

1,342 children and is representative of the U.S. population stratified for gender, race, ethnicity, region, community

setting, classroom placement and parental education.

Reliability

The CAS2 12 Subtest Core Battery Full Scale reliability is .95 with PASS Scale reliabilities ranging from .86 to .93.

Validity

Studies have found that children with a weakness in one or more of the PASS cognitive processes earned lower

scores on achievement tests and were likely to be identified for special education services. The more marked the

cognitive weakness, the low the achievement scores. Naglieri makes the argument that the use of traditional

intelligence tests to compare with achievement to identify learning problems is faulty as traditional IQ tests

contain questions that are similar to the questions on achievement tests (especially verbal and quantitative

questions). The similar content inflates the relationship between IQ and achievement. The CAS does not include


achievement-like questions and has the advantage of predicting concurrent and future performance without the

problem of content overlap (Naglieri and Conway, 2009).

Naglieri and Conway point out that while the CAS does not contain achievement-like questions, the correlations

between the CAS and achievement tests is very similar to the relationship found between typical IQ tests and

achievement. This finding provides construct validity for the CAS and suggests that the cognitive processes

measured on the CAS are correlated with academic performance. Naglieri, and Ford (2005) report that since the

CAS does not measure achievement-like skills, it is a fairer test for minorities, those who live in poverty and who

may have a disadvantage on an IQ test that is at least partly measuring achievement rather than cognitive

processing.

Woodcock Johnson-Fourth Edition Test of Cognitive Abilities

Published by: Riverside

Copyright: 2014 (coming out this summer)

Cost: Complete Kit (Cognitive Test + Achievement Form A) - $1,934.90 (in box)

Cognitive Battery: $1148.85 (in box)

Content

The website indicates that this new edition of the Cognitive Battery is strongly oriented to the CHC model. It yields

a new Gf-Gc Composite for comparison to measures of cognitive processing, oral language, and achievement.

(http://www.riversidepublishing.com/products/wj-iv/pdf/MS91542_WJIV_SellSheet_HR.pdf).

Standard Battery • Test 1: Oral Vocabulary • Test 2: Number Series • Test 3: Verbal Attention—new • Test 4: Letter-Pattern Matching— new • Test 5: Phonological Processing— new • Test 6: Story Recall • Test 7: Visualization— new • Test 8: General Information • Test 9: Concept Formation • Test 10: Numbers Reversed

Extended Battery • Test 11. Number-Pattern Matching • Test 12: Nonword Repetition— new • Test 13: Visual-Auditory Learning • Test 14: Picture Recognition • Test 15: Analysis-Synthesis • Test 16: Object-Number Sequencing • Test 17: Pair Cancellation • Test 18: Memory for Words

The WJ-IV website indicates that the Standard Battery includes seven tests that are used to derive the General

Intellectual Ability (g) score. Factor scores for Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc), Fluid Reasoning (Gf, and Short-

Term Working Memory (Gwm) are obtained from the Standard Battery. The efficiency with which an individual can

perform cognitive tasks is measured by Cognitive Efficiency. In addition, a new Gf-Gc Composite is provided that

the website professes will be valuable as a predictor score for evaluation of strengths and weaknesses across all

http://www.riversidepublishing.com/products/wj-iv/pdf/MS91542_WJIV_SellSheet_HR.pdf


areas of cognitive processing, linguistic competency, and academic performance (Schrank, McGrew, Mather, &

Woodcock, 2014).

Psychometrics

Current psychometrics for the new WJ-IV could not be located online, but the previous editions of the WJ have

been well regarded.

Nonverbal Tests of Intelligence

Comprehensive test of Nonverbal Intelligence, 2nd

Edition (CTONI-II)

Authors: Hammill, Pearson, & Wiederholt


Copyright: 2009

Cost: $457.00

Time to test: 40-60 minutes

The CTONI-II is the second edition of a norm-referenced test that uses nonverbal formats to measure general

intelligence in children and adults (ages 6 to 89). The nonverbal format may be useful for those whose

performance on traditional tests might be affected by language or motor abilities. The CTONI-II does not adhere to

any particular theory of intelligence. It is a more practical approach to assessing ability using either simple oral

instructions or pantomime instructions. The authors still point out that the CTONI-II measures most of the abilities

measured by most intelligence tests. It does not measure general information, vocabulary or motor behavior.

Content Evaluation (Hammill, Pearson & Wiederholt, 2009)

The CTONI-II measures analogical reasoning, categorical classification and sequential reasoning using six subtests:

Pictorial Analogies and Geometric Analogies use a 2x2 matrix format to measure complex cognitive ability (i.e.,

this is to that (foot and shoe in the upper boxes) as this is to what (hand is to – select picture of glove) lower two

boxes in matrix).

Pictorial Categories and Geometric Categories require the test taker to deduce the relationship between two

stimulus figures (for example two different types of chairs) and then from a list of pictures, choose an object that

can be used for sitting.

Pictorial Sequences and Geometric Sequences contain different figures that bear some sequential relationship to

one another. The last box is empty and the test taker chooses from a list of figures the figure that best fits the

sequence. The test taker must recognize the rule that is guiding the progression of figures (Hammill & Pearson,

2009).

The CTONI-II was normed on a sample of 2,827 people from 10 states. U.S. Census information was used to stratify

the sample for geographic region, gender, ethnicity, parent education and income. The CTONI-II yields age

equivalents (they apologize for offering them), Percentile ranks, scaled scores (M=10, SD=3) and composites

(M=100 and SD=15). A Full Scale composite is also offered.

Reliability

Internal consistency coefficients for the subtests were in the .80s and in the .90s for the composite scores.

Test-retest coefficients for a 2-4 week interval were in the .80s for subtests and the higher .80s and .90s for the

composites (Hammill & Pearson, 2009).


Validity

The magnitude of the correlations between the CTONI-II and several other intelligence tests (TONI-4, UNIT, RIAS,

WISC-IV, KAIT) are all large (r=.50 to .69) or very large (r=.70 to .89). Correlations between the CTONI-II and various

achievement batteries (for reading and math) were in the large to very large range (Hammill & Pearson, 2009).

Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability (WNV)

Authors: Wechsler & Naglieri


Copyright: 2006

Cost: $737.95

Time to test: Full Battery (4 subtest): 45 minutes, Abbreviated (2 subtest): 20 minutes

The WNV website describes the test as a nonverbal measure of ability for anyone. Especially designed for culturally

and linguistically diverse groups. It is normed for ages 4 to 21.

Content Evaluation (Wechsler & Naglieri, 2006)

The WNV is comprised of a variety of subtests intended to measure general ability in different ways. Most of the

WNV subtests can be found in other Wechsler products. Those subtests include the following:

Matrices: Adapted from the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test NNAT.

Coding: Adapted from the WISC-IV.

Object Assembly: Adapted from the WPPSI-III and the WISC-III.

Recognition: A new match-to-stimulus subtest. Child looks at page with geometric designs and then chooses

which of four of five responses matches the original design.

Spatial Span: From the WMS-III, the test taker mimics the examiner’s tapping on a series of blocks in order or

in reverse order.

Picture Arrangement: Adapted from the WAIS-III, the test taker arranges a set of picture cards to tell a logical

story.

Four subtests are used for to obtain a full scale IQ. For children 4-7 the Matrices, Coding, Object Assembly and

Recognition subtests are used. For those age 8-21 Matrices Coding, Spatial Span and Picture Arrangement are

used.

The WNV was standardized on two samples, one collected in the U.S. that consisted of 1,323 people stratified for

age, sex, race/ethnicity, education level, and geographical region, and the other collected in Canada that included

875 participants across a stratified sample similar to the U.S.

Reliability

Internal reliability for the U.S. sample ranges from .74 to .91 for the subtests and .91 for the full scale scores.

Similar correlations were found with the Canadian sample.

Validity

The WNV full scale IQ correlates with the WISC-IV at r=.76. While the manual contains support for its validity, the

MMY review suggested that more work needs to be done in this area.


Shorter Batteries

Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence-Second Edition

Author: David Wechsler – Project team directed by Hsin-Yi Chen


Copyright: 2011

Cost: $327.00 (in box)

Time to test: 4 subtest: 20-30 minutes

Content Evaluation (Pearson, 2011)

A short and reliable measure of intelligence for clinical and research settings. It is normed for ages 6-89 and

contains four familiar subtests (Vocabulary & Similarities make up the Verbal Comprehension Index, and Block

Design and Matrix Reasoning makes up the Perceptual Reasoning Index). The four subtests yield a Full Scale IQ. All

IQ scores use a mean of 100 with a standard deviation of 15. The subtest scores yield T scores (M=50, SD=10). An

even shorter Full Scale IQ can be obtained using two subtests (i.e., Vocabulary and Matrix Reasoning).

If it is determined that a full battery is needed, the four WASI-II subtests can be substituted for their equivalent

subtests on either the WISC-IV or WAIS-IV. This saves time and can minimize carryover affects.

Standardization was completed using a sample of 2,245 children and adults ages 6 to 90 years. The sample was

stratified for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education level and geographic region using the current U.S. Census data.

Reliability

Internal reliability for the subtests varies by age, but in general the reliability coefficients fall within the upper .80s

to the upper .90s. The IQ scales are a little higher than the coefficients of the individual subtests. For the children’s

sample, test-retest stability with a mean interval of 10 days ranged from .76 to .93 for subtests and .91 to .93 for

the Full Scale (4 subtest) IQ scales.

Validity

Correlations with the WISC-IV ranged from .75 for Similarities to .83 for Block Design. The IQ correlations ranged

from .88 for the WISC-IV to .90 for the WAIS-IV. Construct validity of the WASI-II was supported by the

intercorrelations of the WASI subtests and IQ scales and through factor analysis. Some concern has been raised for

the use of factor analysis since only two subtests are available for each IQ score (normally three variables – or

subtests – would be desired); however, a factor pattern emerges that supports separating the verbal from the

nonverbal tests. The WASI, the WASI-II and the K-BIT-2 appear to measure the same constructs (Canivez, Konold,

Collins & Wilson, 2009).

Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales (RIAS)

Authors: Reynolds & Kamphaus

Published by: Psychological Assessment Resources (PAR)

Copyright: 2003

Time to test: Four subtest Composite IQ requires about 20-25 minutes

Time to test: Composite Memory Index requires additional 10-15 minutes

Cost: $448.00


Content Evaluation (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2003)

The RIAS is an individually administered test of intelligence that is co-normed with a supplemental measure of

memory that is normed for ages 3 to 94. It includes four subtests, two which make up the Verbal Intelligence Index

(VIX) and two that make up the Nonverbal Intelligence Index (NIX). A Composite Index (CIX) is derived from the

four subtests. A composite Memory Index is obtained from two supplemental memory subtests. The authors

report that the test was designed to join practical and theoretical aspects of the assessment of intelligence

(Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2003). The RIAS applies the CHC model as a primary theoretical guide while also

maintaining verbal and nonverbal domains.

Verbal Subtests are as follows:

Guess What: test takers are provided with 2 or 3 clues and asked to deduce the object of concept being described.

The Guess What subtest measures verbal reasoning in combination with vocabulary and language development.

Verbal Reasoning: examinee listens to a propositional statement that forms a verbal analogy and is asked to

respond with one or two words that completes the idea or proposition. This test measures verbal-analytic

reasoning with less emphasis on vocabulary than the Guess What subtest.

Nonverbal Subtests are as follows:

Odd Item Out: test taker is presented with a picture card containing 5 to 7 pictures or drawings and asked to

determine which one does not belong with the others. This test measures nonverbal reasoning, spatial ability and

visual imagery.

What’s Missing: the test taker is shown a picture with a key element missing and is asked to identify that key

element. This test measures nonverbal reasoning.

Composite Memory Scale

Verbal Memory Index: brief stories are read out loud to the test taker who is asked to recall them. This test

measures encoding and brief storage of verbal material within a meaningful context.

Nonverbal Memory Index: A stimulus picture is presented to the test taker for five seconds followed by an array of

pictures. The test taker must identify the target picture from the array of six pictures. Measures encoding,

short-term storage and recognition of pictorial stimuli that are both concrete and abstract and without meaningful

reference.

The RIAS yields index scores (M=100, SD=15) for a verbal IQ, a nonverbal IQ, a composite IQ and a composite

memory index.

The RIAS was normed on a sample of 2,438 participants from 41 states between 1999 and 2002. The sample was

stratified for age, gender, ethnicity, education level (parent education for children) and geographic region.

Reliability

Internal reliability using coefficient alpha reached .84 or higher for every age group. The median alpha reliability

estimate was reported as .90 or better. Test-retest stability with an average interval of 21 days were in the .70s

and .80s.

Validity

Confirmatory factor analyses suggest that the CIX, VIX and NIX possess evidence of factorial validity. The authors

report that the CMX needs further research with a variety of clinical and nonclinical samples (Reynolds &

Kamphaus, 2009).


Correlations with the WISC-IV such as RIAS-VIX with WISC-IV-VCI were in the .80s whereas the RIAS-VIX with the

WISC-IV-PRI ranged in the .40s to the .70s. The CIX correlations with the WISC-IV-FSIQ ranged from .79 to .90.

Additional correlations were reported for achievement indicating that the RIAS has good predictive value for

educational achievement.

Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test-2nd

Ed.

Authors: Alan Kaufman and Nadine Kaufman

Published by: Pearson (originally by AGS)

Copyright: 2004

Time to test: 20 minutes

Cost: $250.00

Content Evaluation (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004b)

The KBIT-2 contains 3 subtests. Two verbal (Verbal Knowledge and Riddles) and one nonverbal (Matrices) that yield

a VIQ, NVIQ and a Composite score. Normed on 2120 examinees from 34 states and stratified to the 2001 US

Census for education status (or mother’s education), geographical region, race and ethnicity. Norms are available

for ages 4 – 90. It is considered a reputable screening test for intelligence. It is easy to administer and easier to

score than other abbreviated batteries like the WASI-II.

Reliability

Interval consistency correlations for Verbal were .86-.96, for Nonverbal they were .78 to .93 and for IQ composite

they were .89 to .96. Test-retest with mean interval of 28 days yielded correlations from .76 to .93.

Validity

Compared to WASI, WISC-IV, WAIS-III yielded correlations in the moderate to high range.

Good test for a short screening tool.

Personality Assessment in Children & Teens

Considerations in Personality Assessment

Expansion of practice,

Need to be thorough,

Need to integrate data

Role of theory (Flanagan, 2007)

Expansion of Practice

thorough assessment of personality, or social/emotional/behavioral functioning.

school psychologists generally do a more thorough job of assessing cognitive domains

clinical psychologists tend to do a more thorough job of assessing psychopathology.

(Flanagan, 2007)

Need to be Thorough

a construct-based approach to assessment results in a broader view of the individual and his or her

functioning because more aspects of constructs can be measured with greater specificity


Need to Integrate Data

Consider all data and being open to modifying interpretations on the basis of new information.

Accept divergence in findings and seek to explain it to capture the uniqueness of the individual.

A more useful report is more than separate descriptions of the numerical data from each test

Role of Theory

test interpretation should occur within a theoretical framework

many personality assessment devices were developed atheoretically, allowing interpretation according to a

preferred framework (Esquivel and Flanagan, 2007).

The Use of Drawings with Children

Drawings are less threatening

Drawings provide focused discussion

Drawings supply creative solutions

Drawings provide visual representations of problems areas

Drawings expand therapeutic engagement (Oster & Crone, 2004)

Drawings in the Test Battery

Reveal the dimension of fantasy and imagination often not captured in observations, checklists, and

interviews

Entry point into the subjective world of the client

Rough idea of developmental level (Oster& Crone, 2004)

Drawing Assessments

Draw-A-Person (Machover, 1952)

o Reflects person’s self-concept

o Projections of conflicts and concerns

Draw-A-Person in the Rain (Verinis, Lichtenberg, & Henrich, 1974)

o Rain represents perceived external stress

Mother-and-Child drawing (Gillepsie, 1994)

o Interpersonal self

Drawing Assessments

House-Tree-Person (Buck, 1948)

o Seen as standard

o House represents home life, interpersonal dynamics of family

o Tree represents unconscious feelings toward the self

o Person represents perceptions of self or who they wish to be

Kinetic House-Tree-Person (Burns, 1987)

o Adding action reflect clients’ well being more profoundly than static drawings

Draw-A-Family (Appel, 1931)

o Attitudes toward family members and perception of family roles

Kinetic Family Drawing (Burns & Kaufman, 1970).

Kinetic School Drawing (Prout & Phillips, 1974)


Children’s Apperception Test (CAT)

Purpose: A projective method of investigating personality

Population: Ages 3-10

Administrative Time: varies

Publisher: C.P.S., Inc.

Cost: $142 for complete kit

CAT (2 versions – animal & human)

Consists of 10 picture cards showing animals engaged in relationship-oriented interactions

Designed to elicit how children perceive, respond to, and resolved different developmental problems

Presented as a game to child

Pictures presented in specific order

What is going on in the picture

What the animals are doing

What happened before in the story

What will happen next

CAT Psychometrics

No psychometric information reported in manual

psychometric concepts are not fully applicable to projectives (Anastasi, 1996)

Personality Assessment in Adolescence

Clarity in assessment needed to help address

o Serious emotional disturbance

o Juvenile delinquency

o Violence

o Mental health issues (Crespi & Politikos, 2008)

Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory (MACI)

Purpose: Assess and adolescent’s personality along with self-reported concerns and clinical syndromes

Population: ages 13-19 – intended for a clinically disturbed population

Administration: 30 minutes

Publisher: NCS Assessments

Cost: $125 for starter kit (manual, 3 assessments, and mail-in scoring)

MACI

Appropriate for clinically disturbed population

NOT appropriate as assessment of normal personality or as a screening tool

160 items, 27 content scales, and 4 response bias scales

Personality Pattern scales parallel DSM IV personality disorders

Test construction follows domain theory of Millon

Personality Pattern Scales

Introversive

Inhibited

Doleful


Submissive

Dramatizing

Egotistic

Unruly

Forceful

Conforming

Oppositional

Self-Demeaning

Borderline Tendency

Expressed Concerns

Identity Diffusion

Self-devaluation

Body disapproval

Sexual discomfort

Peer Insecurity

Social Insensitivity

Family Discord

Childhood abuse

Clinical Syndromes

Eating Dysfunctions

Substance-abuse Proneness

Delinquent Predisposition

Impulsive Propensity

Anxious Feelings

Depressive affect

Suicidal Tendency

MACI Psychometrics

Normative Sample: Primary sample of 579 adolescents, 2 cross validation samples of 138 and 194 each.

All subjects were in treatment programs.

Validity/Reliability: Cronbach alpha reliabilities range from .73-.91. Content validity is congruent with

theory of personality developed by author. Concurrent validity with the judgments of clinicians less than .35

Minnesota Multiphasic Inventory – Adolescent (MMPI-A)

Purpose: To assess major patterns of personality and emotional disorders

Population: ages 14-18


Publisher: University of Minnesota Press

Cost: $210 starter kit

Scoring: hand, computer, and mail-in scoring available

MMPI-A

Resembles the MMPI-2

4 sets of scales;

o Validity scales

o Basic clinical scales


o Content Scales

o Supplementary scales

Support diagnosis and treatment planning in a variety of settings.

Identify the root causes of potential problems early on.

Provide information to share with parents, teachers, and others in the adolescent’s support network.

Guide professionals in making appropriate referrals

Validity Scales

? - Cannot Say (reported as a raw score)

VRIN - Variable Response Inconsistency

TRIN - True Response Inconsistency

F1 - Infrequency 1

F2 - Infrequency 2

F - Infrequency

L - Lie

K - Correction

Clinical Scales

1 (Hs) Hypochondriasis

2 (D) Depression

3 (Hy) Hysteria

4 (Pd) Psychopathic Deviate

5 (Mf) Masculinity–Femininity

6 (Pa) Paranoia

7 (Pt) Psychasthenia

8 (Sc) Schizophrenia

9 (Ma) Hypomania

0 (Si) Social Introversion

MMPI-A Psychometrics

Normative Sample: Adolescent subjects obtained through schools in 8 states. Balanced sample across

geographic region, urban-rural residence, and ethnic background. Heavily skewed in the direction of

higher education and occupational level.

Validity/Reliability: Content validity established with the MMPI and the MMPI-2

Behavior Rating Scales

Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment: The Preschool and School-Age Behavior Checklists

Authors:T. Achenbach & L. Rescorla

Published by: Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment

Cost: Child Behavior Checklist pkg of 50 = $25.00

Preschool computer scoring starter kit = $330.00

School-Aged computer scoring starter kit = $430.00

The Child Behavior Checklists (CBCL) are well-known behavior rating scales for preschool and school-aged children

that were first published in the 1980s. The CBCL is designed to assess behavior and emotional problems as well as


social competencies as reported by parents, teachers and through self-report. Updating for DSM-5 + new early

childhood autism rating scale.

The Preschool CBCL (2000) scales are normed for ages 1.5 to 5 years. They include 99 items with ratings for

parents, childcare workers and teachers. An element of the CBCL/1½-5 is the Language Development Survey (LDS),

that uses parents’ reports to examine children’s expressive vocabularies and word combinations, along with risk

factors for language delays. Syndrome scales include: Emotionally Reactive; Anxious/Depressed; Somatic

Complaints; Withdrawn; Sleep Problems; Attention Problems; Aggressive Behavior.

The Teacher Report Form for the CBCL/1½-5/LDS contains items that child behavioral health experts from ten

cultures have rated as being consistent with DSM diagnostic categories. The DSM-Oriented Scales include:

Affective Problems; Anxiety Problems; Pervasive Developmental Problems; Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity

Problems; Oppositional Defiant Problems.

The school age assessment is normed for children ages 6 to 19 and includes forms for parents/surrogates, teachers

and self-report. The empirically based syndrome scales for teachers and parents include:

Anxious/Depressed; Withdrawn/Depressed

Somatic Complaints Social Problems

Thought Problems Attention Problems

Rule-Breaking Behavior Aggressive Behavior.

DSM oriented scales are also available and are reported to be consistent with DSM-IV categories and include:

Affective Problems Anxiety Problems

Somatic Problems Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Problems

Oppositional Defiant Problems Conduct Problems.

In 2007 multicultural norms were added to both the Preschool and School-Aged scales that provides problem-scale

profiles in relation to multicultural norms. Different norms are provided for different societies

Reliability

Test-retest for the preschool form using an average 8 day interval yielded correlations in the .80s and .90s with a

mean r = .85. Test-retest on the school-aged form yielded a mean r = .88 with stability ratings after 12 months

averaging r = .65. Inter-parent agreement was observed with a r = .61 and the agreement between caregivers and

teachers was correlated at .65. Internal consistency for the school-aged forms ranged from the .70s to the .90s.

Additional information pertaining to the scales’ reliability is available at the website: www.aseba.org.

Validity

Content validity is well-established through extensive research and revisions of the forms. This information is

available in the manuals that are available through the scales’ website (www.aseba.org). Good discrimination

between children referred for behavioral health and special education services is noted when compared to a group

of non-referred children with similar demographics.

Behavioral Assessment System for Children-2nd Ed.

Author: Randy Kamphaus and Cecil Reynolds

Publisher: Pearson (originally published by AGS)

Copyright: 2004

Full length form: 10-20 minutes for parent and teacher ratings

http://www.aseba.org/



Costs: Hand score starter kit: $527.60

Web-based scoring available

The BASC-II is a set of rating scales that include the Teacher Rating Scales (TRS), Parent Rating Scales (PRS),

Self-Report of Personality (SRP), Student Observation System (SOS), and Structured Developmental History (SDH).

The BASC-2 parent and teacher rating scales provide 16 clinical subscales:

Activities of Daily Living Functional Communication

Adaptability Hyperactivity

Aggression Leadership

Anxiety Learning Problems

Attention Problems Social Skills

Atypicality Somatization

Conduct Disorder Study Skills

Depression Withdrawal

Content (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004)

The BASC-2 is designed to assist in treatment planning, evaluation and intervention as well as to assist with

differential diagnoses when used with the DSM-IV. The teacher rating scales vary in length from 100 to 139 items.

The parent ratings range from 134 to 160 items. Total scores for each scale are converted to composite scores,

scaled scores, percentiles and there are graphs available with the computerized scoring program.

The BASC-2 was normed on a general population of American children and adolescents from various settings that

included 4,650 teacher ratings and 4800 parent ratings. A clinical norm sample included 5281 reports from

teacher, parent and self-ratings.

Reliability

Internal consistency has yielded coefficient alphas in the .90s for composite scales and in the .80s for subscales.

Test-retest reliability with one to eight week intervals were in the .80s for composites and .70s and .80s for

subscales.

Validity

The manual describes several measures to compare the BASC-2 with similar scales. In general, correlations were in

the high .70s and .80s (Achenbach scales, Conner scales, etc.).

Conners 3

Author: K. Conners

Publisher: MHS Publishers

Full length form: 20 minutes

Costs: Hand score kit with 25 forms: $449.00 (recently updated for DSM-5)

Software scoring program (unlimited use): $321.00

The Conners 3 is the third edition of a behavior rating scale used to assess for ADHD and other childhood disorders.

There are scales for parents and teachers (ages 6-18) and a self-report form for ages 8-18. The Conner, 3 contains

several scales including:

General Psychopathology Inattention

Hyperactivity/Impulsivity Learning Problems


Executive Functioning Aggression

Peer Relations Family Relations

ADHD Inattentive ADHD Hyperactive-Impulsive

ADHD Combined Oppositional Defiant Disorder

Conduct Disorder

The Conners 3 has three validity scales titled: Positive Impression, Negative Impression and an Inconsistency Index.

The subscale raw scores are converted to T scores (mean=50, SD=10).

Reliability

Internal consistency coefficients are .90 and above for parent and teacher ratings and .85 and above for the self

reports. Interrater reliability is described as .82 to .98. Some subscales were slightly lower.

Validity

Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis yielded a five factor model for parents (learning problem,

aggression, hyperactivity/impulsivity, peer relations and executive functioning. A four factor model better suited

the teacher ratings (learning problems, aggression, hyperactivity/impulsivity, and peer relations. Correlations

between parent and teacher rating was .60.

Convergent validity with BASC-II, CBCL, etc were reported as reasonable.

The Conners 3 is a well-designed and improved over pervious Conners scales and highly recommended for clinical

use (Arfa, 2010).

Child Depression Inventory, 2nd Ed.

Author: Maria Kovacs

Publisher: MHS

Copyright: 2011

Time to test: 5 – 15 minutes

Cost: Complete hand score kit: $289.00

Complete software score kit: $399.00

The Children’s Depression Inventory 2 (CDI2) is a rating scale designed to obtain ratings of a child’s depression

from parents, teachers and self-report. The rating scale is based on the original CDI that enjoyed much success.

The scale can be administered as a paper-pencil test, online or with a computer. The scales provided by the CDI2

include Emotional Problems and Functional Problems and four subscales including:

Negative Mood Negative Self-Esteem

Ineffectiveness Interpersonal Problems

A full length scale provides 28 items, whereas, a short screening scale uses 12 items.

The CDI2 was normed on a sample of 1187 parent ratings and 631 teacher ratings representing 26 different states

in the U.S. It is evenly proportioned for age and gender and the sample’s racial/ethnic distribution matches the

U.S. census distribution. A clinical sample of 319 youth ages 7 to 17 with diagnoses of Major Depressive Disorder,

ADHD, Conduct Disorder, Generalized Anxiety and Oppositional Defiant Disorder was obtained.


Reliability

Internal consistency using coefficient alpha was nonclinical samples ranged from .68 to .88 and for clinical sample

.76 to .89. Test-retest with interval of 1-4 weeks ranged from .54 to .67. For 6 month interval it was .54.

Validity

A relationship is noted between CDI and self-esteem measures. Little is offered comparing the CDI with other

depression scales for children. Considered acceptable as a screening instrument, (MMY-17).

Revised Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale: Second Editon (RCMAS-2)

Authors: Cecil R. Reynolds & Bert O. Richmond

Publisher: Western Psychological Services

Copyright: 2008

Cost: Basic kit: $119.00

Time to administer: 10-15 minutes

The RCMAS-2 is a brief self-report inventory measuring the level of anxiety in 6- to 19-year-olds. The test is made

up of 49 items covering the following scales:

physiological anxiety worry

social anxiety defensiveness

inconsistent responding index

A cluster of 10 items assesses performance anxiety. The Defensiveness scale replaces and improves upon the

RCMAS Lie scale, and the Inconsistent Responding index is new to this edition.

Norms are based on an ethnically diverse sample of more than 2,300 individuals ages of 6 and 19, with similar

numbers of males and females. Norms are provided for three age groups: 6 to 8 years, 9 to 14 years, and 15 to

19 years. The website reports that because RCMAS-2 scales correlate highly with RCMAS scales, the research using

the RCMAS extends to the RCMAS-2. Seligman, Ollendick, Langley, Baldacci and Bechtoldt (2004) found that the

RCMAS was able to discriminate between anxiety disorder and externalizing disorders, but it was not as sensitive

to discriminating between anxiety disorder and other internalizing disorders.

Vanderbilt Scales

Copyright: 2002 American Academy of Pediatrics and the National Initiative for Children’s Healthcare Quality

Available via many websites

The NICHQ Vanderbilt Assessment Scales for parents and teachers screen for ADHD, Oppositional/Conduct

behaviors, and anxiety/depression. The instruments are primarily used to assess for symptoms of ADHD. The

Teacher version contains 18 items that assess ADHD, an additional 10 items that assess for oppositional and

conduct problems, 7 items that screen for depression and anxiety and 8 additional items that rate academic

performance and classroom behaviors. The parent form contains 18 items that assess ADHD, 8 items that screen

for oppositional behaviors, 14 items that evaluate for conduct problems and 7 items that rate anxiety and

depression. Additional items rate school performance, relationships with family members and peers.

Psychometric properties include Cronbach alpha’s at .90 or better. With regard to the 18 items used to diagnose

ADHD the two subscales (9 items for inattentive and 9 items for hyperactivity), factor analysis supports this two

factor model. Internal consistencies were .93 or higher and the scale correlates well with the Computerized


Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children. The Vanderbilt scales have become a popular and easy to use behavior

rating scale to assess for ADHD with parents and teachers (Wolraich, Lambert, Doffing, Bickman, Simmons, &

Worley, K., 2003).

Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS)

Author: Kay Hodges

Publisher: Functional Assessment Systems (Kay Hodges)

Copyright: 2000

Time to test: 10 minutes

Cost: Costs are not posted on their website – paper forms are available but FAS appears to be trying to market

it as an online tool with a yearly fee.

The basic CAFAS assesses a youth’s functioning across eight domains that include:

School Home

Community Behavior Toward Others

Mood/Emotions Self-Harmful Behavior

Substance Use Thinking

Ratings are made on a four point scale (Severe-30, Moderate-20, Mild-10 and Minimal-0). Additional ratings are

available for caregiver resources.

The CAFAS was normed on 4758 children. Average test-retest correlations are .78, interrater reliability is .92 and

inter consistency is between .73 and .78 (Hodges & Wong, 1996). Hodges and Wong. It has demonstrated validity

in predicting service utilization among youth with serious emotional disturbance (Hodges, Doucette-Gates & Kim,

2000).

Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths (CANS)

Author: John Lyons

Publisher: Praed Foundation

Copyright: 1999

Different versions of the CANS are in use in several states by child welfare, mental health and juvenile justice

applications. A comprehensive, multi-system version also exists. Some versions of the CANS can be downloaded

from the Praed website.

The CANS is somewhat similar to the CAFAS. It rates life domains using a range of 0 to 3 (no evidence-0, a history

of the concern but doing well-1, significant problem-2, severe problem-3). The life domains include:

Family social functioning

Medical developmental

learning problems sexuality

self-care community.

There are additional domains that evaluate school, child behavioral/emotional needs, acculturation, etc. There is

another section that assesses strengths across a range of domains (family, talents, interpersonal, educational,

resiliency, etc.).


Reliability studies indicate that the CANS is reliable at the item level. Training and certification is required for the

use of the CANS and there is a recommended minimum for certification (reliability of 0.70 using an intraclass

correlation coefficient on a test vignette). Average reliability after training is approximately 0.80. Reliability on case

record is 0.85 and reliability with a live interview is at least 0.90. Validity has been explored using other measures

with similar constructs such as the CAFAS and CBCL. Validity has been demonstrated through the relationship of

the CANS to service use and outcomes. (Anderson, Lyons, Giles, Price & Estle, 2003).

References for Developmental Assessments

Athanasiou, M. (2007). Review of the Battelle Development Inventory, 2nd

Ed. In Geisinger, K. F., Spies, R. A.,

Carlson, J. F., & Plake, B. S. (Eds.). (2007). The seventeenth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros

Institute of Mental Measurements.

Baird, G., Charman, T., Baron-Cohen, S., Cox, A., Swettenham, J., Wheelwright, S., and Drew, A. (2000). Screening

for autism at 18 months of age: 6-year follow-up study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent

Psychiatry, 39(3), 694-702.

Bayley, N. (2006). Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Devlopment- Third Edition. San Antonio, Tx: Harcourt

Assessments Inc.

Benish, J. (1998). Review of the Bayley Infant Neurodevelopmental Screener. In Impara, J. C., & Plake, B. S.

(Eds.). (1998). The thirteenth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental

Measurements

Capute, A.J., and Shapiro, B.K. (1985). The motor quotient: A method for the early detection of motor delay.

American Journal of the Diseases of Children, 98, 692-697.

Chandler, L., Andrews, M., and Swanson, M. (1980). The movement assessment of infants: A manual. Rolling Bay,

WA: Infant Movement Research.

Chittoorango, M.M., (2001). In Plake, B. S., & Impara, J. C. (Eds.). (2001). The fourteenth mental measurements

yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.

Coplan, J. (1993). Early language milestone scale. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed

Dumont-Mathieu, T., and Fine, D. (2005). Screening for autism in young children: The Modified Checklist for Autism

in Toddlers (M-CHAT) and other measures. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Review,

11, 253-262.

Folio, M.R., and Fewell, R.R. (1983). Peabody developmental motor scales and activity cards: A manual. Allen, TX:

DLM Teaching Resources.

Glascoe, F.P. (2003). Parents’ evaluation of developmental status: How well do parents’ concerns identify children

with behavioral and emotional problems? Clinical Pediatrics, 42, 133-138.

Graham, T. (2007). Review of the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development in Geisinger, K. F., Spies, R. A.,

Carlson, J. F., & Plake, B. S. (Eds.). (2007). The seventeenth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros

Institute of Mental Measurements.


Kush, J. (2001). Review of the Vineland Social-Emotional Early Childhood Scales in Plake, B. S., & Impara, J. C.

(Eds.). (2001). The fourteenth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental

Measurements.

McCormick, M. (2008). Issues in measuring child health. Ambulatory Pediatrics, 8(2), 77-84.

Morgan, A.M., and Aldag, J.C. (1996). Early identification of cerebral palsy using a profile of abnormal motor

patterns. Pediatrics, 98(4), 692-697.

National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early

childhood development. Committee on Integrating the Science of Early Childhood Development, J.P. Shonkoff and

D.A. Phillips (Eds.). Board on Children, Youth, and Families, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and

Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Piper, M.C., and Darrah, J. (1994). Motor assessment of the developing infant. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders.

Rutter, M., Bailey, A., and Lord, C. (2003). The social and communication questionnaire (SCQ) manual. Los Angeles,

CA: Western Psychological Services.

Siegel, B. (2004). Pervasive developmental disorders screening test-II (PDDST-II). Early childhood screener for

autistic spectrum disorders. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.

Sparrow, S. S., Balla, D. A., & Cicchetti, D. V. (1984). Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales. Circle Pines, MN: American

Guidance Service, Inc.

Stone, W.I., Coonrod, E.E., and Ousley, O.Y. (2000). Brief report: Screening tool for autism in two-year-olds (STAT):

Development and preliminary data. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30, 607-701.

Wetherby, A.M., and Prizant, B.M. (2002). Communication and symbolic behavior scales: Developmental profile.

Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Widaman, K. (in press). Review of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales in Spies, R. A., Carlson, J. F., & Geisinger,

K. F. (Eds.). (in press). The eighteenth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental

Measurements.

Wyly, M.V. (1997). Infant assessment. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Intelligence References

Canivez, Gary L.; Konold, Timothy R.; Collins, Jason M.; Wilson, Greg; School Psychology Quarterly, Vol 24(4), Dec,

2009. pp. 252-265.

Flanagan, D. P., Ortiz, S. O., & Alfonso, V. C. (2007). Essentials of cross-battery assessment. (2nd Edition). New

Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.


Georgas, J., Van de Vijver, F., Weiss, L., & Sakofske, D. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the WISC-III: Cultural

considerations in assessing intelligence. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Hammill, D. & Pearson, N. (2009). Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence-Second Edition. In J. Naglieri &

S. Goldstein (Eds.), Practitioner’s guide to assessing intelligence and achievement (pp. 233-263).

Hammill, D., Pearson, N. & Wiederholt, J. (2009). Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence, (2nd ed.). Austin,

TX: Pro-Ed.

Kaufman, A. & Kaufman, N. (2004a). Manual for the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children-Second Edition.

Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Kaufman, A. & Kaufman, N. (2004b). Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test, Second Edition. Bloomington, MN: Pearson,

Inc.

Kaufman, A. & Lichtenberger, E. (1999). Essentials of WAIS-III assessment. New York: Wiley.

Lichtenberger, E., Sotelo-Dynega, M., & Kaufman, A. (2009). The Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children-Second

Edition. In J. Naglieri & S. Goldstein (Eds.), Practitioner’s guide to assessing intelligence and achievement (pp.

61-93).

Mather, N & Woodcock, R. (2001). WJ III tests of cognitive abilities examiner’s manual. Itasca, IL: Riverside.

Naglieri, J. (2008). Traditional IQ: 100 years of misconception and its relationship to minority representation in

gifted programs. In J. L. Van Tassel-Baska (Ed.), Alternative assessments with gifted and talented students (pp.

67-88). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Naglieri, J. & Conway, C. (2009). The Cognitive Assessment System. In J. Naglieri & S. Goldstein (Eds.),

Practitioner’s guide to assessing intelligence and achievement (pp. 27-59).

Naglieri, J. & Das, J. (1997). Cognitive Assessment System. Itasca, IL: Riverside.

Naglieri, J. & Brunnert, K. (2009). Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability. In J. Naglieri & S. Goldstein (Eds.),

Practitioner’s guide to assessing intelligence and achievement (pp. 315-338).

Psychological Corporation. (1999). Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence. San Antonio, TX: Author.

Reynolds, C & Kamphaus, R. (2003). Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales. Odessa, FL: PAR.

Rindermann, H. (2007). The bigg-factor of national cognitive ability. European Journal of Personality, 21 (5),

767-787.

Roid, G. H. (2003a). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales – Fifth Edition, Examiner’s Manual. Itasca, IL: Riverside.

Roid, G. H. (2003b). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales – Fifth Edition, Technical Manual. Itasca, IL: Riverside.

Roid, G. H. & Tippin, S. (2009). Assessment of intellectual strengths and weaknesses with the Stanford-Binet

Intelligence Scales-Fifth Edition. In J. Naglieri & S. Goldstein (Eds.), Practitioner’s guide to assessing intelligence and

achievement (pp. 127-152).


Sattler, J. & Saklofske, D. (2001). WISC-III subtests. In J. Sattler, Assessment of children: Cognitive applications (4th

ed., pp. 266-297). San Diego, CA: Jerome Sattler.

Schrank, F.A., McGrew, K.S., Mather, N., & Woodcock, R.W. (2014). Woodcock-Johnson IV. Rolling Meadows,

IL:Riverside Publishing.

Wechsler, D. (2012). Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence-Fourth Edition. San Antonio, TX:

Pearson.

Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt

Assessments.

Wechsler, D. (2008). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.

Wechsler, D. (2011). Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence – Second Edition. Bloomington, MN: Pearson.

Wechsler, D. & Naglieri, J. (2006). Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.

Personality Assessment References

Anastasi, A. (1996). Psychological testing (6th ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Appel, K.E. (1931). Drawings by children as aids in personality studies. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1,

129-144.

Buck, J.N. (1948). The H-T-P test. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 4, 151-159.

Burns, R.C. (1987). Kinetic House-Tree-Person drawings (K-H-T-P): An integrative manual. New York:

Brunner/Mazel.

Burns, R.C., & Kaufman, S.H. (1970). Kinetic Family Darwings (K-F-D): An introduction to understanding children

through kinetic drawings. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Claiborn, C. (1995). Review of Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory – Adolescent. In Conoley, J. C., &

Impara, J. C. (Eds.). (1995). The twelfth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental

Measurements.

Crespi, T., & Politikos, N., (2008). Personality assessment with adolescents: Challenges and guidelines.

Adolescence, 43(171), 593-606.

Esquivel, G. & Flanagan, R. (2007). Narrative methods of personality assessment in school psychology.

Psychology in the Schools, 44(3), 271-280.

Flanagan, R. (2007). Comments on the miniseries: Personality assessment in school psychology. Psychology

in the Schools, 44(3), 311-317.


Gillepsie, J. (1994). The projective use of mother-and-child drawings: A manual for clinicians. New York:

Brunner/Mazel.

Machover, K. (1952). Personality projection in the drawing of the human figure. Springfield, Il: Charles C.

Thomas.

Oster, G., & Crone, P.G. (2004). Using Drawings in Assessment and Therapy (2nd Ed.). New York:

Brunner-Routledge.

Prout, H.T., & Phillips, P.D. (1974). A clinical note: The Kinetic School Drawing. Psychology in the Schools, 11,

303-306.

Reinehr, R. (1998). Review of Children’s Apperception Test [1991 Revision]. In Impara, J. C., & Plake, B. S.

(Eds.). (1998). The thirteenth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental

Measurements.

Retzlaff, P. (1995). Review of Millon Acolescent Clinical Inventory. In Conoley, J. C., & Impara, J. C. (Eds.).

(1995). The twelfth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.

Verinis, J.S., Lichtenberg, E.F., & Henrich, L. (1974). The Draw-A-Person-In-The-Rain technique: Its relationship to

diagnostic category and other personality indicators. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 30, 407-414.

Behavior Ratings References

Achenbach, T. & Rescorla, L. (nd). Manual for the Achenbach System for Empirically Based Assessments: Pre-school

and School-age Manuals. http://www.aseba.org.

Anderson, R., Lyons, J., Giles, D. Price, J. & Estle, G. (2003). Journal of Child & Family Studies. Vol. 12 Issue 3,

p279-290.

Arffa, S. (2010). Test review of the Conners 3rd Edition. In Spies, R. A., Carlson, J. F., & Geisinger, K. F. (Eds.). (2010).

The Conners 3. The eighteenth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental

Measurements.

Hodges, K., & Wong, M. (1996). Psychometric characteristics of a multidimensional measure to assess impairment:

The Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 5 (4), 445-467.

Hodges, K., Doucette-Gates, A., & Kim, C-S. (2000). Predicting service utilization with the Child and Adolescent

Functional Assessment Scale in a sample of youths with serious emotional disturbance served by center for mental

health services - funded demonstrations. Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research, 27 (1), 47-59.

Geisinger, K. F., Spies, R. A., Carlson, J. F., & Plake, B. S. (Eds.). (2007). The Child Depression Inventory, 2003

update. The seventeenth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.

Gerard, A. B., & Reynolds, C. R. (2004). Characteristics and Applications of the Revised Children's Manifest Anxiety

Scale (RCMAS). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.



Reynolds, C. & Kamphaus, R. (2004). Behavior Assessment System for Children-Second Edition manual. Circle Pines,

MN American Guidance Service.

Seligman, Laura D.; Ollendick, Thomas H.; Langley, Audra K.; Baldacci, Heidi Bechtoldt. (2004).

The Utility of Measures of Child and Adolescent Anxiety: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Revised Children's

Manifest Anxiety Scale, the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children, and the Child Behavior Checklist. Journal of

Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, Vol. 33 (3), pp. 557-565.

Spies, R. A., Carlson, J. F., & Geisinger, K. F. (Eds.). (2010). The Conners 3. The eighteenth mental measurements

yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.

Wolraich, M., Lambert, W., Doffing, M., Bickman, L, Simmons, T. & Worley, K. (2003). Psychometric properties of

the Vanderbilt ADHD Diagnostic Parent Rating Scale in a referred population. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, Vol.

28 (8), pp. 559-568.

http://research.carlow.edu:2104/ehost/viewarticle?data=dGJyMPPp44rp2%2fdV0%2bnjisfk5Ie42d%2bK6uXhh%2bqk63nn5Kx95t%2fxWLSlr0qtqK5Jr5awUrCuuE2xls5lpOrweezp33vy3%2b2G59q7Ra%2bmt1G1r7FMsaykhN%2fk5VXj5KR84LPfiOac8nnls79mpNfsVa%2bqrky2q69PpNztiuvX8lXk6%2bqE8tv2jAAA&hid=101

http://research.carlow.edu:2104/ehost/viewarticle?data=dGJyMPPp44rp2%2fdV0%2bnjisfk5Ie42d%2bK6uXhh%2bqk63nn5Kx95t%2fxWLSlr0qtqK5Jr5awUrCuuE2xls5lpOrweezp33vy3%2b2G59q7Ra%2bmt1G1r7FMsaykhN%2fk5VXj5KR84LPfiOac8nnls79mpNfsVa%2bqrky2q69PpNztiuvX8lXk6%2bqE8tv2jAAA&hid=101

A Review of Instruments Used Presented by - … · about the child’s performance in that ......

Documents

Transcript of A Review of Instruments Used Presented by - … · about the child’s performance in that ......